"How on earth was this time bomb allowed to go on ticking for so long?"
So asks Allah Pundit over at Hot Air who has a round-up of "personality quirks" exhibited by the VT killer. The press and other sources at this point have painted Cho Seung-Hui as a text book case of a school shooter. We all know the characteristics--loner, mental health problems, possibly delusional, yada yada yada. And as always, the blame game begins. Mainly as I saw on the MSM last night with shows like Dateline or 48 Hours, the gun is blamed and Katie Couric's concerned face is flashing on the TV once again along with "experts" to describe the terrors of "death machines."
It would be so easy if the complexities that went into the making of a killer could be boiled down to "where did this guy get a gun?" It takes responsibility away from trying to understand what went into the making of the killer, and why we, as a society did nothing to stop him. I can only talk in generalities here, for this case is unfolding and I do not know all of the facts. But I do know some facts about young people who kill or threaten others in schools and universities.
The violence-prone individual is more likely to have enduring personality pathology, such as a paranoid, schizoid, narcissistic, or antisocial personality, and a long history of difficult interpersonal relationships. He may ruminate about perceived slights or injustices for months or even years. Because he is often a loner, he has no circle of friends to correct his misinterpretations of other people’s intentions and behaviors. Because he looks at the world from a very egocentric point of view, he is unable to correctly perceive the effect of his behavior on other people. The emotion he feels is not everyday anger but profound and intense hatred of those who have allegedly demeaned or wronged him. His thinking is so faulty that he can justify assaultive behavior on the basis that he is the innocent victim (Beck, 1999). This faulty thinking was evident in the 22- page letter sent by the University of Arizona shooter Robert Flores to a local newspaper, to be read after he succeeded in killing his teachers and himself.
Student violence is more likely to occur during times of high stress, such as final exam periods, or despair arising from suspension/expulsion from a program. Rampage killers, such as those at the Appalachian School of Law, University of Arizona, and Case Western Reserve, tend to be males with a history of work and relationship failures. They often have a preoccupation with weapons or war regalia, even those that serve no purpose, such as nunchucks or throwing stars. A common characteristic is aspiring to more than they can achieve; when their unrealistic ambitions are thwarted, they blame others for their failures. They are not acting on impulse, but rather enacting purposeful, predatory violence that they have been planning for a long time. However, there is often a final, precipitating event, involving an affront or rejection, within hours or days of the murders. This final affront destroys any remnants of hope.
What I am amazed by is that in many school shootings, especially in universities, school authorities and others were told that there were problems or in some cases, the eventual killer had already made threats but no one did anything. The schools deny any responsibility at all in most of these cases although, sometimes they end up being sued for it. But what is money when people's lives are at stake? It's often the case that when the killer finally lashes out, the people who knew him aren't surprised -- they'd been predicting something like this for weeks or months, but no action was taken.
In my opinion, if we have mentally unstable students who have made threats, have behavioral problems, etc. in universities and schools who do not hold themselves or the student accountable for their behavior, there is no other alternative than to extend the civil right to concealed carry to the potential innocent staff and students who may encounter the wrath of such a person. If universities and schools won't take responsibility -- and they won't -- then someone has to.
It would be so easy if the complexities that went into the making of a killer could be boiled down to "where did this guy get a gun?" It takes responsibility away from trying to understand what went into the making of the killer, and why we, as a society did nothing to stop him. I can only talk in generalities here, for this case is unfolding and I do not know all of the facts. But I do know some facts about young people who kill or threaten others in schools and universities.
The violence-prone individual is more likely to have enduring personality pathology, such as a paranoid, schizoid, narcissistic, or antisocial personality, and a long history of difficult interpersonal relationships. He may ruminate about perceived slights or injustices for months or even years. Because he is often a loner, he has no circle of friends to correct his misinterpretations of other people’s intentions and behaviors. Because he looks at the world from a very egocentric point of view, he is unable to correctly perceive the effect of his behavior on other people. The emotion he feels is not everyday anger but profound and intense hatred of those who have allegedly demeaned or wronged him. His thinking is so faulty that he can justify assaultive behavior on the basis that he is the innocent victim (Beck, 1999). This faulty thinking was evident in the 22- page letter sent by the University of Arizona shooter Robert Flores to a local newspaper, to be read after he succeeded in killing his teachers and himself.
Student violence is more likely to occur during times of high stress, such as final exam periods, or despair arising from suspension/expulsion from a program. Rampage killers, such as those at the Appalachian School of Law, University of Arizona, and Case Western Reserve, tend to be males with a history of work and relationship failures. They often have a preoccupation with weapons or war regalia, even those that serve no purpose, such as nunchucks or throwing stars. A common characteristic is aspiring to more than they can achieve; when their unrealistic ambitions are thwarted, they blame others for their failures. They are not acting on impulse, but rather enacting purposeful, predatory violence that they have been planning for a long time. However, there is often a final, precipitating event, involving an affront or rejection, within hours or days of the murders. This final affront destroys any remnants of hope.
What I am amazed by is that in many school shootings, especially in universities, school authorities and others were told that there were problems or in some cases, the eventual killer had already made threats but no one did anything. The schools deny any responsibility at all in most of these cases although, sometimes they end up being sued for it. But what is money when people's lives are at stake? It's often the case that when the killer finally lashes out, the people who knew him aren't surprised -- they'd been predicting something like this for weeks or months, but no action was taken.
In my opinion, if we have mentally unstable students who have made threats, have behavioral problems, etc. in universities and schools who do not hold themselves or the student accountable for their behavior, there is no other alternative than to extend the civil right to concealed carry to the potential innocent staff and students who may encounter the wrath of such a person. If universities and schools won't take responsibility -- and they won't -- then someone has to.
posted by Helen at 7:58 AM
98 Comments:
Everyone is afraid to be sued and everyone wants to be politically correct. Dr. Helen, I think you said it correclty, once a "threat" has been made and it only builds on already troubled behaviour, then something needs to be done. When so many lives are gathered in a public setting such as schools and Universities, the "threats" can not be taken lightly.
I am curious. Do you think that there is something profoundly disturbed and paranoid about the people who genuinely fear the average person owning a gun? That's the way I lean on the issue because I don't believe that the average person is insane or prone to lashing out with a bit of the ol' ultraviolence over minutia. A lot of liberals seem profoundly terrified of the idea of the average joe owning a gun. Would you say that there is a case to be made for saying that such people are afflicted by an unhealthy paranoia?
MikeT:
I think perhaps the person who is afraid of others owning a gun often is afraid of 1) being reponsible for any reason and 2) their own emotional instability. They are typically cowards who do not want to take responsibility for doing anything and therefore want the rest of us to follow suit. If you ask a person who is afraid of guns etc. why, they often say that they themselves would not feel comfortable owning one as they do not know what they might do. I assume these are people who have little control over their emotions and extend that to other people. In addition, they deny that violence can happen and wish to keep the rest of us involved in their fantasy that the world is safe or would be safe if no one owned a weapon.
They tend to sabotage others and wish to undercut people's tendency towards bravery and courage in order to make themselves feel better about being cowards. The US media seems to encourage this outlook and tries to persuade people to become dependent on the state for protection. It is propaganda, pure and simple.
Dr. Helen wrote: In my opinion, if we have mentally unstable students who have made threats, have behavioral problems, etc. in universities and schools who do not hold themselves or the student accountable for their behavior, there is no other alternative than to extend the civil right to concealed carry to the potential innocent staff and students who may encounter the wrath of such a person. If universities and schools won't take responsibility -- and they won't -- then someone has to.
There are some colleges and universities that have more stringent protocols for identifying and monitoring high risk students. Are you suggesting that these schools loosen their gun regulations as well?
Based upon this horrible, tragic, and very rare event, you are calling for all colleges and universities to loosen up their gun controls and invite students and staff to bring firearms on campus. Instead of encouraging our country to develop, at the local, state, and national level a greater understanding of the mental, physical, social, cultural, and economic issues that may be in play and developing and strengthening an infrastructure for early identification, prevention, and intervention you are emphasizing the need to arm our campuses.
As has been pointed out by gun rights advocates, guns are not really the issue and I am not a gun control advocate. On the other hand, I do not think that insuring that everyone is armed is, necessarily, the answer either. The deeper malaise and thornier set of problems that may inform violent behavior are not likely to be solved through the barrel of a gun.
Before raising a call to arms for all colleges and universities, I would like to see some studies done on selected campuses. Why not loosen gun regulations on some campuses and track their rates of violence for a few years before issuing a mandate applying to all campuses? Then, we may be in a better position to make informed decisions about firearms on college and university campuses.
It would seem that we are for the most part in agreement. I think it's questionable that such people should be allowed to vote. If they cannot handle the responsibility that comes with handling a simple firearm, there is no way that they possess the emotional and intellectual capacity to safely and morally wield political power, especially in a nation that has a military as armed as ours. IMO, you have no business choosing who will have his or her finger on the nuclear trigger if you cannot trust yourself to have your own finger on a trigger.
The problem is that it's probably impossible to prevent events like this by trying to indentify potential perpetrators before they explode. Not every mass murderer fits the profile, and out of probably every hundred people who gives some outward sign of fitting the profile, only one will eventually become a mass murderer. And identifying potential mass murderers before the fact by profiling would be so subjective that there would be both a high failure rate and a high risk of lawsuits.
The only guaranteed way to save lives in a situation like this is by making it possible to respond immediately when one of these killers goes into action (as opposed to letting them have a free shooting gallery for however long it takes for the police to show up). That means firearms dispersed among the potential victims.
If even one in every 20 VA Tech students had had a gun, this man would have been stopped early in his killing spree, and a couple dozen victims who are now dead would still be alive.
"Instead of encouraging our country to develop, ... you are emphasizing the need to arm our campuses."
One does not preclude the other.
"On the other hand, I do not think that insuring that everyone is armed is, necessarily, the answer either."
It is the only workable answer to the immediate question of what to do about the maniac pointing the gun at you.
"The deeper malaise and thornier set of problems that may inform violent behavior are not likely to be solved through the barrel of a gun."
Well, yeah. They would be for a specific maniac. No one promotes the idea that it would 'solve' the issue of maniacs.
"Before ... I would like to see some studies ... track their rates of violence for a few years before ... Then, we may be in a better position to make informed decisions ..."
Well, everyone but those who were murdered during the years the study was ongoing would be in a better position.
What part of immediate survival do some people find so hard to understand?
It is beginning to look like he was referred to several mental health professionals. He seems to have many of the characteristics you describe except for one key - he did not threaten anyone. Is this consistent? What would you do in such a case?
I'm more or less pro-2nd Amendment, but you've got to be kidding. Armed college students?
So next time their basketball team wins (or loses) and they go on the now-traditional drunken rampage through town, you want some of them to be carrying weapons? Next time there's a frat initiation, you want the hazing ritual to be Russian roulette? Next time the campus radicals decide to silence an unpopular speaker, you want them to shoot him?
This very blog has lamented the infantilization of young adults in our society. Now, apparently, we propose to arm those infants. That just doesn't work for me. College students in general are neither mature enough nor responsible enough to be trusted with firearms. This is especially true in today's permissive atmosphere, in which the most outrageous behavior is excused because the students are just "finding their voices."
No, I don't know what the solution is. But letting college students pack heat isn't it.
Bob R,
He didn't threaten anyone? Really?
Something about this guy was bothering people to the point where women were going to the police and he was obviously frightening people. His teachers felt uncomfortable--and he was stalking women who reported him to the authorites. Nothing was done then. Teachers brought him to the attention of school authorities, nothing was done and it has been reported that he started a fire in his dorm room, again nothing done. A mental health evaluation at that point with assessment might have teased out some of his problems and given a clearer picture of his violence potential but I assume that was not done. I understand that we do not want to jump the gun with people, given the low base rate of mass murder. Yet, if someone is exhibiting bizzare and threatening behavior in a school, should this be tolerated without a word? Maybe the answer is yes, in which case, all of us who wish to protect ourselves should have that right and maybe the answer is no, the person should be referred for an evaluation and their behavior monitored. However, something should be done, for to do nothing with the person and simultaneously refuse self-defense capability to those on campus--including staff-- is the ultimate powerlessness.
Bugs,
I understand with today's infantilization of young people that you are reluctant to have students carry weapons. But you realize that the students can carry off campus, do you think those rights should be taken away also? What about a 22 year old who is ex-military etc. Would you deny them the right to carry if they were going to school?
I 'm curious...
In a population of 25,000 students, more or less, how many of them would fit a similar profile? In other words, how many people (who will never do anything like this )will be treated as this fellow should have been treated to prevent this event?
Would there be only this one in that population or would there be a dozen people who, on the surface, look like him? More?
I'm not sure what more could have been done here. Everyone looks for ways of preventing such events but I don't want to see a rush to find solutions that are worse for the vast majority of sane people and that probably won't deter a determined killer.
This man was an adult. His teacher took him aside and earnestly recommended counseling. He hadn't threatened anyone. What further can you do?
Anonymous 11:17:
The base rate of this type of killing is low. There would be many false positives in your example--that is, there might be a number of people who would fit the profile who would never engage in this type of violence, and in fact, most don't of course. In terms of psychopathy, (and I am not saying this killer was a psychopath) about 1% of the population has these traits so potentially you would have 250 in the general population. Probably less at a college campus. Out of those, who is dangerous? It is hard to say. But this guy was stalking women and setting a room on fire. Do you believe this should be overlooked by school authorities?
"Progressives" have an interesting tendency to identify goodness/badness with devices and inanimate objects rather than with human beings. Just as the phrase "gun crime" is common in the US, the phrase "knife crime" is being used in the UK. I guess if knives are banned in that country, people will be talking about "rock crimes" or "frying pan crimes."
Related thoughts at my post Arming Airline Pilots--The Deeper Issues.
In my state to get a carry permit you have to take a gun handling & safety course. My instructor actually kicked out an old guy who wouldn't keep his finger out of the trigger guard when not shooting. And once you're trained it changes your whole outlook. I'll bet there wasn't a sport shooter in the country who didn't wish they were at VT, carrying, when this happened so they could try to take the guy out.
But that's the difference between someone who's trained and confident, and someone who's scared the gun will go off shooting all by itself or that he might suddenly shoot his own brains out if there were a gun in the house.
THOSE are the kinds of people who don't want you or me or university personnel or students to carry.
The words of Joe in the comments of your previous post, "Every decision was governed by extremely liberal political correctness." seem to be true.
How well this guy fits the profile for violent, mass murderers is amazing. He set fire to his dorm room, according this report other students were so scared of him that some classes he was in had a 90% absentee rate. One professor had a code word she would use to signal her assistant to call the police if she thought he would erupt.
Yet despite all this he freely walked the campus, bought guns and ammo, stalked women, secretly photographed classmates, etc. You'lpd think setting fire to your room would have gotten you kicked out of the place.
Dadvocate,
In my experience, schools are much more concerned for the rights of violent or threatening students than the staff etc. I have professors who tell me they are being stalked by students and when they report it, are told, "there is nothing we can do." This is typical behavior. One professor pointed out to me that the school wins with their do-nothing strategy: either nothing happens or if the professor is injured, they can just hire someone cheaper. What a deal.
Anonymous 11:17: was quasimodo...
DR. Helen,
No I am not saying anything. I was asking a question to get information.
A stalker and fire starter should have been expelled immediately, assuming the charges are proven, (tough to do without a trial of some sort) not that that would have done a bit of good to prevent this kind of thing, mind you.
I was wondering how many people exhibit the same or similar symptoms in a large campus population, and what, if anything, we should do with or for those (250?) people (most of whom probably would never do anything) to catch the one who might.
These are just things I'm wondering about - I have no agenda.
Quasimodo
Helen-
It may not have been enough, but it is simply incorrect to say that nothing was done. For instance, he was convinced by police to check into to St. Albins, a local mental health facility, for evaluation. He had several contacts with police and mental heath providers. They acted immediately after being alerted by the English department. (All this from the latest story in the Post.)
He clearly gave a lot of people the creeps, but I have yet to hear a report that he specifically threatened harm to anyone. Where did you read about the dorm fire? I have not seen this. That is the only of the examples you present contains such an actual threat of violence to anyone. The stalking contact was described as "annoying" by the girls involved, but no charges were pressed. Again, maybe there are examples that I have not seen reported, but what ground do you see for incarcerating him?
Helen,
I'm curious, since I've seen a lot of descriptions of a profile that the individuals who end up becoming mass murderers fit and a lot of people suppose that identifying these people is the real solution.
But what tools are actually available once someone has been identified? Let's assume for the sake of argument that John Doe is a student who fits the profile but is not inclined to cooperate with authorities and does not believe he needs psychological help or counseling.
Let's assume he's done one or two "scary" things similar to the killer in the VTech case before the massacre started, but nothing that would by itself justify imprisonment.
In other words, suppose you've got your chance at early intervention but an uncooperative "patient".
What exactly can be done to help prevent John Doe from becoming a mass murderer?
I'm looking for two types of responses:
1) What can be done legally -- is there some realistic way to perform an evaluation that would identify the risk and result in mandatory treatment and potentially involuntary commitment?
2) What can be done psychologically -- are there treatment options that have a reasonable rate of success with (at least initially) uncooperative patients?
Based upon this horrible, tragic, and very rare event, you are calling for all colleges and universities to loosen up their gun controls and invite students and staff to bring firearms on campus.
I don't think anyone is asking for them to go that far. I'm just asking them to allow people who are licensed by the state to carry everywhere else, to do so on campus. Every time someone suggests this, people automatically shout "you want to arm students". No, I don't. But I want those who have gone through the training and licensing requirement to be treated the same way they are everywhere else. There's little sense in the restriction, even if I don't think it would have necessarily averted this tragedy.
And I would say that at least Helen is only asking that the universities change their policy. I've been encouraging people to ignore the policy, if they have a proper license to carry legally. How crazy does that make me?
bob r -
This article mentions the dorm room fire, among other things.
Thanks for the link. I have not seen the dorm fire story in the Post, CNN, or the local papers.
It concerns me that VT thought that nothing could be done, that the right of the individual superseded the safety of the whole. I wonder if any 1 person/department had all the info re: what was going on with this individual: mental health admit, potential for suicidal ideation/behavior via parents, stalking, classmates & teachers fear him to the point of refusal to be in class with him, starting a fire in the dorm, and recent silence (escalating from minimal response to not talking). There needs to be a central place for information like this.
After the fact, the same students and teachers “knew” it was him. I wonder if colleges should have, on the conditions of admission, something to the effect that if you exhibit several behaviors correlating to a DSM IV diagnosis, that failure to address it on your part: not pursuing treatment once identified and no discernable improvement of symptoms/behaviors will lead to parental notification/involvement and possible removal from the educational environment until the behavior is resolved. The school should reserve the right to essentially remove potential threats from campus. This should also be a laborious multidisciplinary process, not to be used to dismiss mere irritants. I would think that this is within the scope of any university. By allowing it to continue, you imply that the behavior is acceptable. SherH
For what it is worth, the VT police have described their interactions with Cho. Details can be found
No mention of a fire. According to them, they followed Helen's script pretty well, convincing Cho to seek mental health care at St. Albans a year ago. We will see.
Wow... there are a lot of excellent comments here. Everyone's said most of what I was going to say, which is essentially:
* It's difficult to think of what can be done pre-emptively to stop something like this once you've profiled someone.
* It's even harder to think of what can be done pre-emptively that can be done to the tons of false positives that can be generated.
I think there's an analogy that can be made to airport security here. The goal of airport security used to be to keep guns and dangerous people off the planes. Well, it seemed that the easiest way to accomplish that was to keep them out of the terminals. But eventually, people started to realize that the security checkpoints themselves were vulnerable -- specifically to car bombs. So now there's no parking/idling in front of terminals, and a lot of airports have you park elsewhere and shuttle in.
What happens, though, when we decide it becomes necessary to shield the parking lots and shuttle stops from guns and dangerous people?
One of the biggest gaps in popular understanding that I've come across is that the purpose of a defensive perimeter is to establish a border around what's really important. In some ways, the purpose of a defensive perimeter is to take fire. You can't stop an attack by establishing a defensive perimeter: you can only stop an attack from reaching a particular thing. The perimeter is going to take some fire. If you want to actually stop an attack, you have to go on the offense.
So we turn our eyes back to these school shootings. We can't stop something like this from happening with defensive measures. An attack is an attack. "Gun free zones" and police presence and restrictions and metal detectors in dorms and ubiquitous surveillance won't stop an attack -- although such measures may limit the scope of an attack once it happens.
It seems that what is being discussed here is "offensive" action -- preemption taken against the enemy before the attack begins.
But that's a tall order when you don't know who the enemy is, and can't readily pick the enemy out of a crowd.
The question, then, becomes one of how ruthless we are willing to be in order to stop these sorts of attacks from happening. Are we willing to forcibly commit someone who, statistically speaking, has less than a 5% chance (even when correctly profiled) of ever materializing into a threat?
The answer to that might be yes, but that's where we need to be having this debate. After Columbine, everyone was talking about trenchcoats and dark writing and moodiness and loners, and all I could think about was the fact that my friends and I fit those descriptions to a "T" -- it's just that we believed strongly in the idea of virtue to go along with our oh-so-tragically-hip alienation.
"if you exhibit several behaviors correlating to a DSM IV diagnosis, that failure to address it on your part: not pursuing treatment once identified and no discernable improvement of symptoms/behaviors will lead to parental notification/involvement and possible removal from the educational environment until the behavior is resolved"
I would love to hear a lawyers take on whether the above could be done under current law.
I would also love to her the perspective of mental health experts on the impact of such a measure. In a school environment, a student at risk of a debilitating mental illness may have access to care he or she would not otherwise receive at home.
Helen - I don't know what the solution is regarding firearms on campus. Banning students from carrying guns is indeed a contradiction - especially for state schools in a relatively non-restrictive state like Virginia. But - ex-military and unnaturally mature students excepted - I still wouldn't trust a college kid with a gun if my life depended on it. For that matter, I wouldn't trust most of the people I see on the Metro every day, either. Yet the 2nd Amendment demands that I do trust them.
Guess that's why people argue about this stuff so much. It's a difficult issue.
bob r - This kind of troubled introvert doesn't usually threaten people. To threaten someone would be to acknowledge that another person has had an effect on him. He can't have that. He prefers to remain silent, possibly trying to appear menacing in order to keep people at a distance. His silence surrounds him with mystery. He enjoys feeling that he's too deep and complex for normal people to figure out. His silence also broadcasts the message that other people - the "debauched" ones - are beneath his contempt. In an especially stressful incident, he may drop his facade and lash out briefly. He finds this humiliating for the above reasons.
He has a story about himself and the world which he rehearses constantly to himself: He is one thing, the world is something totally different and inferior. He is right to treat it with contempt and hold himself aloof. It's not worth his attention. He is the noble, lone-wolf hero surrounded by coarse, unthinking, unfeeling fools. He's an English major because he's more sensitive than others. He has profound truths to reveal through his writing.
This persona is not his "true" self - it's a defensive wall he's built to protect an inflated but fragile ego. He spends enormous amounts of mental energy in maintaining this wall. Its upkeep dominates and pollutes every aspect of his life.
It's hard to explain what a "fragile ego" is. It's everything about himself that he feels is precious and good. It's his identity - literally "Him." He can't have it soiled by contact with the "debauched" world. His entire environment is both a threat and an insult to him.
He doesn't know exactly what might happen if his identity-wall were penetrated. He might sink into the general swill of humanity - no longer a special individual but one of "them." Whatever it is, he's terrified of it. He feels instinctively that it is a fate worse than death. It's the Bad Thing, and he spends most of his mental energy trying to avoid it.
If he's lucky, he has a couple of activities or relationships that aren't implicated in his paranoia. These can provide him with opportunities to feel more or less normal for a while, maybe let off some steam. They can be his anchors in reality. If he's not so lucky, then it's just him and his defense mechanisms against the world, 24/7. That's true misery.
Living this way builds up enormous emotional pressure. If the introvert feels threatened enough - that is, if his mental defenses are under too much pressure and seem likely to collapse - he may decide to go on the offensive.
A shooting spree is a final, winner-take-all confrontation between him and the hostile forces that threaten his ego. He finally lets the mental wall collapse, releasing all the stress he's slaved under to maintain it. For once in his life, everything becomes simple. It's liberating.
By killing others, he ties up a lot of loose ends. He eliminates the threats to his ego, expresses his contempt, gets revenge for real or imagined humiliations, lashes out at a world that insults him by its mere existence, puts himself in a position of superiority and control, strikes a flattering pose, becomes famous, and "shows them all."
By killing himself, he puts an end to his stress. He also departs with his dignity (which defines his identity) intact. He can't be picked apart, pawed at, and ridiculed by by police, reporters, prosecutors, psychiatrists, grieving families, and other lesser beings. By dying, he cheats the fate worse than death - the pollution of his identity.
Well, that's my phony-baloney theory, anyway. Sorry if it sounds like I'm muscling in on Dr. H's territory. In this case I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. I was an English major, after all...
Whether any of this really applies to the VT shooter, we'll never know. Nobody knows but Cho, and unfortunately Cho ain't talkin.
Bugs,
Much of what you say seems correct. Often those who have killed say that it gives them a sense of going from a nobody to a somebody--in a culture where being a somebody is so important, it is better to some to be infamous, dead or both.
BTW, a concealed carry permit requires one to be 21 so many college students would not be eligible for one.
Perhaps it would help to think of these as suicides first, wherein the person decides to take others with him. If the issue were framed that way, and people realized there are more suicides than murders, perhaps we would be more attuned to the emotional problems and could intervene when it would make a difference.
anonymous 2:13:
There is a lot of overlap in between suicide and homicide in these cases. If you notice, almost all of the killers die at the scene. I have a chapter in my book "The Scarred Heart" on Kids who Kill Themselves and how there is a correlation between suicide and homicide. If you can reduce the suicidal feelings, you can often prevent a potential mass murder.
See:http://violentkids.com/scarred_heart.html
Fall 1961, New England College. In the dorm several guys guys had shotguns. Some even had scoped deer rifles. We went hunting for squirrels and rabbits in the Fall. No one shot anyone else or threatended each other with firearms. There was no gun policy that I am aware of. In four years of college I saw several handguns, many shotguns, a few rifles, even an M16. No untoward incidents. Not one.
It is not to hard to imagine how far a rampaging killer would get in that setting.
Universities and colleges typically have written codes of student conduct. If a student does not comply he or she can be suspended for a period of time or required to withdraw permanently.
Reading your post I was struck by how many of the characteristics of the violence-prone individual are also characteristics of Radical Islam.
I've always been of the belief that 9/11 was just Columbine on a bigger scale and with broader goals, with the US playing the role of "the popular kids."
Mindsteps,
In my experience, the codes are not often clear on threats, violence, etc. and if they are, not much happens to the student unless they utter a racial epithet against a protected group in which case, you will probably see them gone the next day.
from anonymous:
"In four years of college I saw several handguns, many shotguns, a few rifles, even an M16.
It is not to hard to imagine how far a rampaging killer would get in that setting."
Unless those weapons made their way into the classroom, they wouldn't make a difference, right? I suppose an alert and fast moving student might have intervened in the dorm, but otherwise only a weapon in the classroom would have mattered. Was that permitted? Common? I'm interested because that would be a useful example for naysayers.
Hal,
I think what anonymous was getting at is that the impetus and motive for mass murder in the university was not there in 1961 the way it is now. Many people had guns in their rooms in colleges back then, but they were not unloading them as frequently at their classmates.
the is ONE 100% effective way to stop gun crimes, and murders by guns.
DESTROY ALL GUNS. make no more.
that would stop all gun crime, wouldnt it?
if everyone can carry a concealed gun, then wouldnt that make it MORE likely for people to shoot first and think second.
if children have access to their parents gun cabinets, then a disturbed personality will use whatever is at hand. and weapons like guns USED, destroy life.
more guns = more destruction of life. less guns = less destruction of life.
its that simple. so give everyone a gun, so more weapons will be in the hands of people like him and you and me, give them access to bigger guns, able to kill hundreds at a time, so long as the right to bear arms is obeyed (which only mentions it in regards to militia).
My description of the hypothetical trouble introvert may have been off base. All the stuff I've read about Cho sounds very, very familiar. About all I can say is, it sounds like he was wounded inside and was trying to defend himself from more hurt.
Doesn't sound like he was bullied or ridiculed, but we don't know what his high school years were like. We also don't know much about his parents so far. And it's all subjective anyway - obviously what would wound one person, another person would not even notice.
On the other hand, the more info I read, the less it seems like he was just a victim. Maybe a victim, but it sounds like he had gone way beyond being just a depressed kid. Seemed like his behavior was getting less introverted and more aggressive.
Helen, does it sound like the guy was an undiagnosed schizophrenic? I don't know any untreated schizophrenics (any at all, actually). Didn't think they could function well enough to go to classes, buy guns, plan school massacres, etc. Or is there a spectrum of sanity with this guy on the high end?
How do you figure out somebody like this - especially when he's already met his maker?
Armchair Activist, how do you propose to do that? We have laws that totally ban marijuana. Do you think we have a country in which no marijuana exists? Did prohibition produce a country where alcohol was totally nonexistent? Why do you think that a law banning guns would be any more effective?
If guns are illegal, criminals will still be able to get hold of them. Only the law-abiding will be disarmed.
Dr. Helen:
I have had a different set of experiences. Codes of coduct I have been privy to have included behavior in the classroom (e.g. yelling at instructors), stalking, destroying property,alcohol use, threats, etc. Some schools have established strict behavioral plans that have included involvement in counseling, contact with parents, and other criteria for remaining in school. I have seen University Administrators follow through on these policies.
There may be a wide variation across schools. Private and public institutions may have different policies and the size of the college or university may also be a variable. In addition, the competency and experience of the student management and administrative personnel at the institution may also play a role. There may be internal political and other pressures that shape intervention procedures. Moreover, different states in the country may have established disciplinary requirements for colleges and universities in their respective states.
As you noted, the institutions I have observed have had serious concerns about their liability and this can have an effect on the efforts of their staffs to intervene.
See, for example The new issue of *Chronicle of Higher Education* and the article: "Student Suicide and Colleges' Liability"
by Robert B. Smith and Dana L. Fleming.
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i33/33b02401.htm
armchair - It's a wonderful sentiment, but I'm not sure how you could implement it in this country without tossing the entire Bill of Rights out the window.
In a capitalist economy, it seems like the best way to eliminate a product would be to get rid of the demand for it. You don't see too many 8-tracks on the street these days because nobody wants them anymore.
One way to get rid of the demand is to come up with something better. Better than guns - not sure. Maybe tranquilizer rays that work on everybody and don't accidentally kill people. We're not quite there yet.
Another way is to remove the need. That would mean making hunting illegal, banning the collection of guns, outlawing competitive shooting sports, and eliminating all forms of antisocial behavior against which people might feel the need to defend themselves. You can do the first three with the stroke of a pen. The last one might take a little more effort.
Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
Helen, why are the mass murderers always men? (assuming we don't count abortions as mass murders)
Interesting article: TELLTALE SIGNS:
Providing that support has become a significant issue for higher education as students with complicated and serious mental health histories are increasingly showing up at college campuses, in part the result of the stabilizing effects of prescription drugs. "Modern medications have made it possible for students with rather severe psychological problems to be successful in high school and go to college," Harris said.
Helen:
Are you going to respond to the questions of anonymous 12:06PM?
Neocon answers the questions of Anon. 12:06. It's not the answer I want to read but its apt to be accurate reading of where things stand today.
armchair...a gun can be made by anyone with a lathe, a milling machine, and some metalworking skill...maybe not of the absolute best quality, but workable. Be assured that under your plan, there would be a black-market demand, and illicit machine shops would spring up to fill it.
Would you also ban the private ownership of machine tools?
everyone falls into the categories that cho fitted in, at some point in their lives.
technically, i could be a serial killer, i dont have many friends, i am a loner, i have a pyro streak, candles, and bonfires.
but i am law abiding to a fault, and yes i am afraid of people with guns, people who would have no problem in blowing my brains over the floor and walls. to give people more access to guns, would mean more gun crimes, theres the winkler woman, she killed her husband, with a gun, if the gun wasnt in the house, she couldnt have used it, could she.
nothing will be done, about all the gun deaths, it will fade away, until the next time, when someone with a higher powered gun kills 40, and then the same arguments again.
Folks who question unrestricted gun rights are irresponsible cowards, eh?
Well, that's certainly level-headed reasoning.
more guns = more destruction of life. less guns = less destruction of life.
its that simple.
It's far from that simple. Jeez.
Is it not self-evident that only law-abiding citizens obey gun laws? Make guns illegal, only criminals will have them.
Do some reading on how violent crime has sky-rocketed in Great Britain once guns were outlawed there. The rate of home invasion has actually become slightly higher there than burglaries: criminals are truly more afraid of the security devices people set when they leave the house than they are of being confronted by the (now unarmed) homeowner.
In short, the application of your "just get rid of the guns" policy has yielded a tremendous surge in violent attacks on a population that criminals view as helpless and waiting victims.
It's comforting, perhaps, to tell yourself that the answer lies in getting rid of guns. But it's also terribly misguided and misinformed.
well david i could build a nuclear bomb, does that mean i should be allowed too, for the safety of my house, can i build landmines, to stop intruders. there has to be limits, can i buy hand grenades for protection.
i am afraid that the next person on the street will think i am looking at them funny, and they will pull out their gun and kill me, what if the person in the car ahead of me slams on his brakes, and i hit him, would he be justified to shoot me if her felt under threat. or if he suffers from anger issues.
but this man, bought the gun LEGALLY, and he used it to kill. should anyone be able to buy any gun and use it.
People are making this way to complicated. We have a plugged up toilet, we need a plumber.
The technology exists to identify these people with great certainty, and to also eleiminate false positives. So send anyone supicious to a national center for scanning and whatever. Easy to do.
Figure about a fifty suspects a year. A judicial process would have to be set up to commit suspects, of course, and to weed out false reports. But there is nothing that a plan and some vision could not fix.
"i am afraid that the next person on the street will think i am looking at them funny, and they will pull out their gun and kill me, what if the person in the car ahead of me slams on his brakes, and i hit him, would he be justified to shoot me if her felt under threat. or if he suffers from anger issues.
but this man, bought the gun LEGALLY, and he used it to kill. should anyone be able to buy any gun and use it. "
Well, really, who cares what you think? Your unarmed, worthy of no consideration at all.
But the answer is yes, any law abiding citizen should be able to buy a gun and use it.
The debate over gun control is very much the debate over the ultimate destiny of the human race. Shall we live as ants, controlled by an elite? Or shall we all be equal, evey man free. For one man to say to another, you can't defend yourself, is to be made superior to that man. By what right, do you make yourself superior to me? You go to hell.
There have always been those afraid of freedom, envious of those who are not. We know what kind of man you are. You hate freedom. You hate the free. May you live forever.
There was just a story on the local news about a sheriff's department's "safe schools" program. The spokesman said they ask teachers (from the context it appears to be highschool and middleschool) if they can identify the school bullies. He then says that they ask who are the bullied students, explaining that they want to keep a watch on the bullied students (as possible school shooters). I think it's absurd the way people try to suggest that there is necessarily some sort of justification which pushes people into such things. As a kid, I was bullied; my religious upbringing taught me the difference between right and wrong. There's quite a big jump to the idea that it's appropriate to "punish" innocent people for things others have presumably done. If all these things were really formulaic, they'd be much easier to deal with. ~nother anonymous
armchair activist,
I think everyone are afraid of people with guns, "who would have no problem in blowing my brains over the floor and walls". But this is not your law abiding gun owner. I believe they have a name for these people, what is it, oh yes, criminals. Guess what, criminals aren't impacted by gun control laws except that perhaps it costs more to purchase a gun.
And before you go there, I'll grant that in the VT attack, it was a disturbed young man who lawfully bought a gun. But as we are hearing, he had been tagged as a risk. It appears that if someone is diagnosed as a threat to themselves or others, that the required background check when buying a gun might want to come back with flag for further review. The system works this way if it has the data. Somehow that information didn't make it into the database.
As for women killing their husbands, well, they've been doing that long before they had guns. I believe poison is popular. And remember, Lizzie Borden used an axe to kill her parents. Shall we destroy chemicals and sharp objects. Perhaps we should remove the ability make fire from the human consciousness? Some disturbed individuals have set fires to kill people.
Technology is not moral, it is simply a tool. In this instance the gun was used to advance a disturbed person's psychosis, but had he run into a police officer or had someone came to class armed against school policy, then a gun could have been used to stop his lethal actions.
You are wrong that nothing will be done. But what will and is most important is that this attack will be examined for ways to see where he could have been intercepted before the gun ever came into play, that is where were the 'red flags" and how do we take prudent action when those flags arise in future situations.
but this man, bought the gun LEGALLY, and he used it to kill. should anyone be able to buy any gun and use it.
It's looking like the guy was once involuntarily committed. Which means he was a prohibited person for the purposes of purchasing a firearm. If he got it through legal channels, it's because the state mental health systems aren't updating the NICS records properly. But technically, if it's true he was committed to a mental health facility against his will, he was not legal to purchase of possess a firearm. He lied on ATF Form 4473, which is a felony.
Sebastian,
In an article from ABC News, it states: "It's unclear whether Cho went to the hospital with police on his own or was taken there under protective custody, a possibility under the temporary detention order obtained by police." So it is not known if he was taken voluntarily or unvoluntarily to the hospital. However, the box was checked off on the hospital records that he was an imminent danger to himself, yet they let him go anyway. This is common. Those who are a danger to themselves and others are set free from hospitals often. Perhaps this quick release of mentally ill people is what we should be focusing on and subsequently a better follow-up to see if people have been comitted. I do want to point out that it is very hard to get someone involuntarily committed. I have seen people who are dangerous back out of a hospital within a week or so.
Here is the link for the ABC piece:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1
I won't be able to read the whole thread until later tonight. But I wanted to comment on a couple points now:
Infidel753-
Not every mass murderer fits the profile, and out of probably every hundred people who gives some outward sign of fitting the profile, only one will eventually become a mass murderer. And identifying potential mass murderers before the fact by profiling would be so subjective that there would be both a high failure rate and a high risk of lawsuits.
Where did you get the 1/100 number? I would think the number is much worse - 1/500 to 1/1000 or much worse. There are millions of weird people - or people that other people like to portray as weird - out there. In my opinion it is unwise to waste valuable resources demonizing, harassing, etc. innocent people - and quite possibly doing lasting damage to them, if not ruining their lives - based on faulty suspicions, reports, profiles, etc. Not only is it harmful (and likely criminal/tortious) it is tremendously wasteful as well. And that doesn't even get into the chilling effects of expanding the nanny/police state.
bugs-
I'm more or less pro-2nd Amendment, but you've got to be kidding. Armed college students?
You know that many military personnel are younger than the average college student, right? You know that military personnel engage in a lot of partying and binge drinking, right?
everyone falls into the categories that cho fitted in, at some point in their lives.
Absolutely wrong. (As well as most of armchair activist's other points). And, it is as simple as that.
DESTROY ALL GUNS. make no more. that would stop all gun crime, wouldnt it?
Even if it were possible, as has been pointed out with respect to England, there would then be knife crime. Murder predates firearms.
Take away the knives, and it would be rocks and clubs. Reduce people to tooth and nail, and if they intend to kill, they will use tooth and nail.
if everyone can carry a concealed gun, then wouldnt that make it MORE likely for people to shoot first and think second ... to give people more access to guns, would mean more gun crimes,.
the empirical data says otherwise, but, by all means, let's just override the facts with your FEELINGS
but i am law abiding to a fault, and yes i am afraid of people with guns, people who would have no problem in blowing my brains over the floor and walls.
Are you particularly strong? Expertly skilled in martial arts? If not, logic demands you fear all people stronger or more capable than you are, since they could kill you with equal ease, and probably with less forensic evidence. There's no tracing an arrow to the bow that shot it.
i am afraid that the next person on the street will think i am looking at them funny, and they will pull out their gun and kill me, what if the person in the car ahead of me slams on his brakes, and i hit him, would he be justified to shoot me if her felt under threat. or if he suffers from anger issues.
Most states have "shall issue" laws. Where are the bloody highways and the body counts of those who looked at someone funny?
You epitomize the irresponsible coward label - your fears completely disregard objectively observable reality.
It takes responsibility away from trying to understand what went into the making of the killer, and why we, as a society did nothing to stop him. I can only talk in generalities here, for this case is unfolding and I do not know all of the facts. But I do know some facts about young people who kill or threaten others in schools and universities
But you don't know how many exhibit the same patterns and never kill. Of course society did nothing PROACTIVE to stop him - he had not violated anyone else's rights, and thus retained the right to be left alone. That's called liberty in a free society. One of the downsides of a free society is people have to break the law BEFORE action is taken, and until they do, they have a right to be left alone. There are no utopias, and freedom has its risks, but it beats the alternatives. You'd need an army of school shooters on rampages to hit 1% of the death toll attributable to governments that offer security in exchange for loss of liberty. Why is there any responsibility for understanding the making of a killer in a free society which is, of necessity, powerless to act on that understanding?
Remember, you can't prove a deterministic relationship between the traits and behaviors you speak of and mass murder. At best you can show one way statistical correlations that intuitively suggest a causal relationship. Ultimately, that's no more of a basis for action than the case for racial profiling, and it's a slippery slope to eliminating the right to be different. This is the reason why psychology is inexorably linked to authoritarian thinking. Libertarian thinking only allows for societal intervention in the face of materially harmful ACTION, at which point the psychological reasons for said action are moot. You can't ask why "we, as a society did nothing to stop him" without implicitly saying it's society's fault, and implicitly condemning the liberty which prevents societal intervention.
In my opinion, if we have mentally unstable students who have made threats, have behavioral problems, etc. in universities and schools who do not hold themselves or the student accountable for their behavior, there is no other alternative than to extend the civil right to concealed carry to the potential innocent staff and students who may encounter the wrath of such a person
NOW you're talking constructively like a libertarian. In addition, even if none of the VICTIMS is armed, the police were more than adequately armed to take a more proactive approach once the shooting began. It was clear they had an "active shooter" scenario, so there's nothing to be gained from a wait and see approach. Why do we equip and train our SWAT teams for combat and then have them cower when faced with a lone pistolero?
It may seem like an impossible task but it is so very important to make the right call. One of the problems I have encountered in my career is that people often do not take potential dangerousness seriously enough when they are informed
There's a simple answer that fits perfectly with libertarian thought. If you feel a patient is a threat, there's no ethical hurdle in the way of finding out WHERE and WHEN he's likely to strike, and warning the authorities without identifying WHO he is. This doesn't allow them to act against someone who's commited no crime yet, but it does allow them to be prepared to act swiftly and when the crime IS committed. There's been no breach of confidentiality, but you've poised the authorities to act immediately upon the first breach of the law - the earliest they can act in a truly free society.
I think we're going to have to let market forces and federalism help out here. Maybe George Mason will choose differently than V. Tech. I know I would prefer to hear that my son's high school allowed teachers to be armed if duly licensed in Texas.
Hind sight is 20/20, and this overcomes important elements that have not been cited that would have
made mandatory treatment seem appropriate a year ago. You know we just got over reviewing a case where a woman accused 3 students of rape. Our developing view here would seem to be that those boys had serious mental health issues and should perhaps have been in perpetrators group confessing to their crimes and sent to prison or a mental hospital for probation violation if they failed a polygraph and had feelings for a woman they found themselves alone in a room with. A thought disorder characteristic of serious mental illness is suggested by the observation of Cho's 'rambling' communication but is not cited until after the event. A persecutory grandiosity is suggested in retrospect but not in prior documents. In practice, an outpatient commitment such as Cho received is little more than a judge's statement that he agrees with the advice to get mental health treatment. Was he ever prescribed medication for a serious mental disorder?
It's now 12:06 and my original comment, posted exactly 12 hours ago, has not been fully answered. I confess to being mildly disappointed. I'd like to know what can be done within the psychiatric profession to reach people who don't want to be helped. I'd like to know what it takes to turn a looming tragedy into a success.
I confess to having an answer in mind that the subsequent comments have somewhat brought out. I am afraid that the answer is that *nothing* can be done even once a threat is identified, at least without the cooperation of the patient.
In other words, I'm afraid that identifying the threats solves nothing, because we have no means to cure them without their cooperation and (at least in my hypothetical) no means to confine them involuntarily.
Do I think we *should* have such means? I don't know; I fear the liberty costs of false-positives.
Self-defense is and remains a personal responsibility. I am sickened by the decision of the school's administrators to compel their students and employees to abdicate it.
For people who are advocating stricter gun controls just look at what happened in Japan the following day after the VT tragedy. Japan has one of the strongest and draconian law that bans firearm almost completely and yet the criminal elements still managed to kill the mayor of Nagasaki.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
How about Rwanda where mass murder or genocide was carried out using clubs and machetes? It is not the instrument of mayhem that is at fault in these cases but the underlying rage of real or perceived injustice of the perpetrators. No one should be placed in a situation where they will become victims and be defenseless. The Holocaust would not have been as tragic if Hitler did not disarm the civilian populace. The only ones who fought back were those who were armed in the Polish ghettos.
I haved lived in a dictatorial regime and the first order of business after the declaration of martial law was to surrender all firearms. I'd say it will be better to die fighting for your life and loved ones than go sheepishly without any struggle. The first law of life is to survive.
Xiaoding: The technology exists to identify these people with great certainty, and to also eleiminate false positives. So send anyone supicious to a national center for scanning and whatever. Easy to do.
This sounds like an exciting breakthrough. Could you tell the rest of us more about the exact nature of this astonishing technology, where and when it was developed, and what institutions currently control it? "Scanning and whatever" isn't quite specific enough for a Google search.
dweeb: "One of the downsides of a free society is people have to break the law BEFORE action is taken."
But he did break laws, at least three times that we know of, if the reports are correct -- two acts of stalking and one act of arson. Isn't arson a felony in most states? So there was plenty of legal and moral justification. And yet nothing was done.
For armchair and others: I've downloaded some murder statistics from the FBI's Web site. For the year 2005 (the most year in which complete data is available), there were 10,100 murders nationwide. (They include non-negligent manslaughter in the murder category.) Of these, about 75% were committed with handguns. 1914 murders were committed with knives; 1954 murders were committed with weapons other than guns or knives. 892 murders -- about 8% -- are listed as "hands, fists, feet, etc.". And, incidentally, 20% of all murders in the U.S. are committed in California, a liberal state with strict gun laws.
dweeb:
I agree with your more recent post, inasmuch as I understand you to be arguing against efforts to "identify" the weirdos who might be subject to these kinds of actions. (I confess to being completely frightened of talk like xiaoding's. Scanning? What's next? Minority Report?)
However, let's don't act like without guns, these things would still be happening with knives and axes and clubs. I'm not particularly interested in gun control, but it's highly unlikely we would see the kind of devastation we have here with a knife or axe attack. It would be hard to take out 33 people with a knife or axe.
anon 10:37: True, it would be harder to cause that level of mortality with an axe or a knife. But it would be easy with a bomb. I'm convinced that even a total, and heavily enforced, ban on guns would make little difference.
anon 10:37 It would be hard to take out 33 people with a knife or axe.
There was a guy in Japan who was able to kill almost a dozen people at a school there about two years ago using a knife. Is that OK, since it was a lesser degree of devastation?
"Xiaoding: The technology exists to identify these people with great certainty, and to also eleiminate false positives. So send anyone supicious to a national center for scanning and whatever. Easy to do.
This sounds like an exciting breakthrough. Could you tell the rest of us more about the exact nature of this astonishing technology, where and when it was developed, and what institutions currently control it? "Scanning and whatever" isn't quite specific enough for a Google search. "
Try "Crime Times" for a good start on the subject. I read Science Daily, daily. This technology has been ongoing for the last twenty years, with much progress in the last five. But, it's here and there, no one has put it all together. Which is why i advocate a national center dedicated to research in the are, to bring it all in one place. Try a google for crime, brain, and you will get a lot of info.
In high school, 30 yrs ago, I was a "disturbed young man" who was seriously depressed. I fit all the profiles of a shooter but had no interest in guns. Instead, I planned to do a mass killing with chlorine gas by mixing cleaning chemicals in a closed space filled with students after I had left and LOCKED the door. Fortunately, in an experiment to get the gas to release quickly, I inhaled some and the resulting burning in my chest made me realize what my victims would feel and I didnt do it. I later got help because I realized I was ill.
Banning guns for most people would have no effect on people like me, there are other ways to commit mass murder. However, I do think those who are ever treated for mental disorders should be barred from gun ownership or even gun possession.
When I read what people say about Cho, I amazed to see the amount of misconceptions about people that do these things. I am much older and stable now and never got into trouble but there for the grace of God........
I'd love to be able to give some insight to someone like this but doing so in anything other than an anonymous manner would be difficult.
The problem isnt guns, its the crazy people, I should know.
anon 4:40 - Congratulations: You survived and so did everybody else.
So much of what I'm reading about the current incident is speculative. Interesting to hear from someone who's possibly lived somewhere in Cho's emotional neighborhood for real. I was about on the verge myself for a while. I see him as what I could have become if one or two things had happened differently. You probably know the feeling.
Hope your life is good now. Anything's better than that other way.
There is a coding error around the 40% mark of the comments. Several posts are encased into the same link.
When my uncle was younger he wanted to become a Chemist so he could invent a strain of some virus that would kill a lot of people. He dropped out of college, because he couldn't handle the environment. Today he is a criminal, but has never killed anyone.
Helen said: "I think perhaps the person who is afraid of others owning a gun often is afraid of 1) being reponsible for any reason and 2) their own emotional instability. They are typically cowards who do not want to take responsibility for doing anything and therefore want the rest of us to follow suit. If you ask a person who is afraid of guns etc. why, they often say that they themselves would not feel comfortable owning one as they do not know what they might do. I assume these are people who have little control over their emotions and extend that to other people."
I think this applies to my uncle as he is for gun control (except for hunting, of course) and he is very irresponsible and I think he has anger management issues.
bugs said "No, I don't know what the solution is. But letting college students pack heat isn't it."
What about a voluntary program to train professors?
sebastian said: "But technically, if it's true he was committed to a mental health facility against his will, he was not legal to purchase of possess a firearm. He lied on ATF Form 4473, which is a felony."
When I was in college I went to the counseling center for a few sessions, basically for loneliness and sadness. They had me take this test which determined I probably had minor depression (there was also some moral measurement involved and it basically said I was above average). Now, I don't intend to get a CCW because I don't think I could use it. But would this session mean I couldn't get one? Perhaps it depends on state law.
anon 2:59sm [quote]The Holocaust would not have been as tragic if Hitler did not disarm the civilian populace. The only ones who fought back were those who were armed in the Polish ghettos.[/quote]
Armed militias doing anything semi-effective with guns in the U.S. is a thing of the past. IED is about the only effective means of resistance against an potentially abusive American government as we see in Iraq.
After my chlorine gas obsession, I got into explosives and found both ANFO and the peroxide based stuff that is popular today and very unstable. This was two years later in college. Fortunately, I was int eh university library looking through books on explosives where i found a book on bomb forensics filled with gruesome pics of bomb victims and suddenluy realized what sort of suffering this would cause.
Empathy kept me from doing murder but Cho seemed far more down the path of craziness than I was so his was very suppressed.
Just after this, I discovered marijuana and stayed stoned for over 18 months to keep the darkness away.
In August of 1976, the darkness went away suddenly and dramatically and I still do not know why. Being able to think clearly for the first time in 6 years, I realized the problem was me, not everybody else. This was a major breakthrough.
Today, I have a very nice life thanks to antidepressants. Even without them I would be a danger only to myself because the thought of causing anyone else to suffer is abhorrent.
Others want to deal with this from the end of stopping a shooter when he starts to shoot. I'd like to be able to identify possible shooters and offer them help. There are probably 1000s of kids like this who dont ever do it but every now and then.........
Modern anti-depressants will help people like Cho if the right one is found and given time to work. I doubt they ever found the right one for him. His interest in violence also needed to be channelled into something else. Someone who spends years in the depths of depression is self obsessed and needs to develop empathy for others. My pets developed my empathy when I was that age. I didnt have any human contacts to develop it. When the anti-depressants start to work, it will be empathy that makes him think of other peoples feelings.
If we treat these kids, we will never know if we are successful but we will know if we fail....
is something profoundly disturbed and paranoid about the people who genuinely fear the average person owning a gun?
They project their own irresponsibility onto others.
I read in an editorial about the narcissm of such killers as Cho and Bundy. However, I think Bundy and Cho are entirely different although they both exhibit narcissm.
Bundy did not seem to be depressed and was judged to be mentally sound.
Cho was obviously a depressed crazy. People who are this depressed ARE narcissists due to their mental pain. Imagine that you have severe pain in your body, it limits the amount of time you can spend thinking about others pain. When the pain is in his head, it causes him to lose all empathy and he is only able to focus on what he feels. They want to strike out at anything that might conceivably be the source of pain. Many people who are mentally ill simply either do not know it or are unable to discern the extremity of it. They think that because they are able to reason that their thoughts about most things make sense. Severely depressed peoples thoughts on some things do not make sense even though they can make sense on most things. This causes them to think that it is other people who are the cause of their troubles.
I think that many depressed people, the age of 17-25 is a particularly dangerous time due to hormonal and social changes in their lives. For many of them thye are suddenly away from the support of family that kept them in touch with reality. The quest for adult independence drives many of them down dangerous paths.
Many of these depressed people will either "grow" out of it, get help, go into seclusion or somehow be removed from society by the time they are 25. So, I suggest that the minimum age for owning a handgun be 25.
Some of us know that we should never own a handgun although we have no problems with normal people owning them.
Wow, between MikeT and Dr. Helen in the initial comments (and probably others—not going to read all 77 comments), there's such profound misunderstanding and disparagement of people that disagree with your point of view that I hardly know where to begin. I figured people here might be aware one tends to think the other side is being completely unreasonable or irrational or mentally disturbed to hold the opposing position (this has been shown in abortion and anti-abortion advocates, can't find the link). Just because I think the proliferating guns is a silly idea doesn't automatically make me think that you gun advocates are over-compensating, deranged, paranoid, or stupid. However, the fact that you so easily and nonchalantly disparage others though makes me question your emotional handle on the matter—it’s not the height of a rational response.
Anyway, here's how I think and feel about guns.
I will tell you my position so I can provide at least one confirmed counterexample rather than doubly commit the sin of shameless generalizing the other side.
Yes, I am afraid of others owning guns. No, not everyone. In fact, I’m almost certain 80-99% of people could own them responsibly. I worry about the other 1-20%. Never mind psychotic people Cho, I have regular contact with several people highly reactive and explosive people who I wouldn’t want to own a gun. Again, not projecting here, as I do not get violent when angry. I have physically defended myself however.
Unlike a knife, a gun is a way to kill many people with little danger to oneself, and it will inevitably be used this way (or, yes, in some cases to stop another killer). This is why I believe a gun-free public (impossible in the short-term, of course) might have as many violent incidents, but they would be less deadly to fewer people. It’s nothing to do with reducing the number, but rather decreasing the lethality to the victims and increasing the physical risk to the attacker.
I won’t go into further justifications or reasoning for this fundamental point, because that’s a different topic. But, regarding my “emotional instability,” coward-ness, irresponsibility, paranoia, etc. I would feel comfortable owning one and have handled one before without fear (but yes, with care and respect for its destructive potential). How this is proof that I’m not emotionally unstable remains unclear to me, but it seems to be part of the criteria in some peoples’ books.
I do not deny violence will happen and that the world is safe, but I do believe the violence will be worse and thus the world is less safe with more guns. I think of this more as a mathematical function than a simple truth though—maybe the positive side of a cubic function of #guns (x) versus multiple murders/lethality (y), where the dip is due to the increase of guns by police ownership. Otherwise, though, positively correlated. I cannot support this with links in good conscience because I’ve seen rampant twisting of data on both sides concerning this topic.
Finally, I am not a coward. I stand up to people and for people and while I’d rather not put myself in mortal danger without a good reason (which it seems gun owners do considering a homeowner’s gun is 43 times more likely to kill the homeowner or someone they know than to kill a criminal—see GunCite’s refutation of this data analysis if you haven’t had your share of vacuous drivel for today). Let’s say the stats aren’t true…thinking that they’re on the right track at worst would make me an uncritical reader, not unreasonable or a coward.
Anyway. Please remember that anyone who disagrees with you does not automatically have a mental or mettle defect. I will try to do the same.
I don't know how I feel about gun control. Guns don't do anything unless they are in the hands of someone.
Were I attacked by an intruder in my home, and I had a weapon, he would not walk out alive if I were successful. There are lines that simply do not get crossed from my point of view. Much of my current opinion on that matter was formed in this blog, participating in and reading discussions on the subject of self defense. On the other hand, and I have said this before, there is not a human being in the world that need fear me - but now with a caveat - as long as he is not trying to harm me or mine, or anyone for that matter, unable to defend themselves.
My daughter is a senior at Va. Tech, graduating next month. She has never in her life been exposed to anything like this. When her grandparents passed away one by one, she was too young to realize anything, or remember it. She is shaken to her core over this mass murder. She was walking by Norris between classes at the time Cho was inside beginning his rampage. Too close for her - too close for me.
The school is in deep mourning. In shock. The media circus has angered me to no end. I have a profound dislike for Monday morning quarterbacks.
Has it occurred to the shoulda-kicked-him-outta-college crowd that a: this moves the problem instead of solving the problem and b: its not a terribly bright idea for society to forcibly exclude loners - you are excaberating the problem and virtually guaranteeing the blowup.
"I’m almost certain 80-99% of people could own them responsibly. I worry about the other 1-20%..."
"I think of this more as a mathematical function than a simple truth though—maybe the positive side of a cubic function of #guns (x) versus multiple murders/lethality (y)"
Then factor THIS into your equation buddy:
[the 1-20% group] - 0.0001% Gun Law effect.
[the 80-99% group] - 99% Gun Law effect.
D+: Seems to me, you dropped a few coefficients in your math. Do your homework next time.
Dr. Helen you comment on some factors that may be common to school shooters, but as you know, there is no real pattern, or profile to abuse the term some more, to the school shooters. Here is the Secret Service 2002 report on school shooters. Excellent report.
Final Report and Findings
Jeff
http://www.psychandthelaw.com/
that's cute! Good thinking, sort of, but I was merely saying that the relation of the number of guns to violence is not an all or nothing thing and that no one is denying that violence can happen regardless of the number of guns (yes, even when #guns=0—thinking anti-gun advocates say otherwise is as moronic as saying that anti-gun advocates are totally ignorant of both pre-gun history and humanity’s basest tendencies).
Oh, and I only used x and y in reference to labels of the x and y axes in a possible function, not as terms in any detailed formula that I neglected to lay out properly—or at all, for that matter, because that amount of speculation would be rather futile. Then again, you didn't explain your objections very clearly; maybe I misunderstood. One thing I’m pretty sure you misunderstood, however, was the population that I meant by 1-20% (should you get an F in reading comprehension?). I’m not talking about hardened criminals who have the means and determination to acquire illegal firearms, who will risk carrying illegal firearms, and who acquire them with the intention of using them aggressively. I’m talking about guys like, for example, my ex-boyfriend who was uncontrollably destructive (thankfully not violent toward me, but I didn’t stick around long enough to be sure about that) when angry, even though he is an otherwise law-abiding citizen. Or my friend’s muscular 6’2—to my 5’8—husband, who was inches from taking a swing at me when I matched and mocked his physically menacing stance after reproaching him that he did not have the right to treat anyone—even his wife—that badly (this is actually one of the altercations I was thinking of when Helen indicated people like me might be cowards; I leave out “Dr.” because hers was an bully-pulpit-abusing emotional, not educated opinion). I was scared for my physical safety, but I can recover from a punch so I put myself in danger for my friend. If he had had a gun, call me a non-suicidal coward, but I wouldn’t challenged his already verbally and emotionally abusive behavior.
Anyway, rage is a state where logic and the assessment of consequences seem to shut down. Unless my life experience is completely abnormal, LOTS of people, not just criminals who are willing to carry illegal firearms, are prone to it. Some might not use a firearm if it’s available, but some would. This percentage (I guessed 1-20% of non-convicted criminals would contemplate it) is not affected by mere gun control because they don’t raise any red flags in the databases. So, if every Joe Schmoe who has no prior convictions owns a gun, I bet you the lethality of violent incidents will increase. Actually, incidents would probably increase too—rather than backing down from a fight they can’t win, the little guy can just shoot and ignore dismiss the moderating forces of fear and self-preservation. (To be like Helen, here I will irresponsibly speculate that most gun advocates are self-preserving “cowards” who always get beat up by the bigger and stronger and need to compensate for their weaknesses.) Giving every idiot a weapon of certain/seemingly non-risky/mass death [sorry, I didn’t want to use such provocative language] is like playing with fire, someone’s going to get burned eventually. Just ask the 23,237 Americans who got shot accidentally in 2000 alone, according to the CDC.
And then there’s people like Cho. If you get enough guns off the streets through an outright ban, a usually-poor college student like Cho is going to have a hard time affording a gun or finding a criminal who owns one to steal from. (But now we’re into economics; price tends to be positively correlated to scarcity, providing demand.) Furthermore, an angry high school student isn’t going to be able to steal his parents’ guns, because his dad is a law-abiding citizen and doesn’t own one. So there, I’ve single-handedly solved the problem of school rampages. What’s your solution?
Anyway, factor THIS into YOUR equation next time: the point of my post. If you really want to respond to my first post in a meaningful way, rather than nitpick about coefficients, please prove the emotionally-loaded attack "Dr.” Helen made on people who allegedly lose bowel control when contemplating an armed public or what they themselves might do if they had a gun. It'd be humorous point of view if she hadn't used her authoritative position to nonchalantly rip apart those who can REASONABLY hold a different opinion.
PS: What's the other .9999% of the effect of gun laws? Or did you forget how to do 1st-grade math? LOL.
Radish said...
There was a guy in Japan who was able to kill almost a dozen people at a school there about two years ago using a knife. Is that OK, since it was a lesser degree of devastation?
No (duh). But "almost a dozen" dead is still over 21 more than survived this incident, so it is better/preferable (duh). Cho's 33 is at least 3X your -uncommon- killer. Are you capable of perceiving the difference between 11 or fewer to 33? No? You must be one of the crazies who doesn't see the fundamental difference between a 9mm and an UZI or a candle and a house fire.
Sorry, but how exactly would more guns make gun violence less likely?
Say a crazed killer goes on the rampage. Hero gets gun out, shoots killer. Another hero sees someone with a gun, thinks it is the killer and shoots him. And so on, until the police arrive and shoot everyone.
But then, over here having a gun gets you five years inside, and as a result we've had about two gun rampages in the last twenty years... and they were by licensed gun owners before the law was tightened up even more.
:-D
Sorry, but how exactly would more guns make gun violence less likely?
Say a crazed killer goes on the rampage. Hero gets gun out, shoots killer. Another hero sees someone with a gun, thinks it is the killer and shoots him. And so on, until the police arrive and shoot everyone.
But then, over here having a gun gets you five years inside, and as a result we've had about two gun rampages in the last twenty years... and they were by licensed gun owners before the law was tightened up even more.
:-D
There has been an incredible outpouring of knowledge in the last couple hundred years. The results for mankind in general have been good. Two of my personal favorites are indoor toilets and municipal drinking water systems. We don't have to live by a river, or dig wells by hand, etc. We do not all have to be subsistence farmers and constantly chop wood, churn butter, on and on. Wars would be fought over forests by now, were that the case. Fresh water supply will be a huge problem soon enough. It is, and has been, in many places.
In general, we live better and longer, and to a degree, on a world wide basis. And as we all know, we still have a long way to go - population control not being the least of our planet's problems.
Mankind needs an outpouring of wisdom to rival that of knowledge, as unlikely as that will ever be.
In Biblical times, the dangerously mentally ill, or otherwise evil, etc. were tied to a post and stoned to death. The whole town participated (for a reason, if you think about it). They did not know what else to do. Overall, I'd say we still don't.
The problem isn't guns, or knives, or pipe bombs after all, is it? Had I been there, and had the chance to take out a Cho, etc., I would much rather have been able to do it with my bare hands. Up close and personal.
搬家
搬家
搬家公司
徵信社
徵信
彩妝造型
新娘秘書
票貼
室內設計
室內設計
徵信
徵信社
外遇
徵信
徵信社
外遇
搬家
搬家
花蓮民宿
花蓮民宿
免費a片
a片
免費av
色情影片
情色
情色網
色情網站
色情
成人網
成人圖片
成人影片
18成人
av
av女優
性
情慾
走光
做愛
sex
H漫
免費a片
a片
免費av
色情影片
情色
情色網
色情網站
色情
成人網
成人圖片
成人影片
18成人
av
av女優
性
情慾
走光
做愛
sex
H漫
a片
アダルト
アダルト
アダルトサイト
アダルトサイト
離婚
抓姦
外遇蒐證
外遇抓姦
外遇
侵權
仿冒
應收帳款
工商徵信
Shade sail
nike shoes
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
水泵
电动隔膜泵
自吸泵
离心泵
磁力泵
螺杆泵
化工泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
隔膜泵
气动隔膜泵
a片
成人網站
成人影片
寵物用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
MBA
在职研究生
在职博士
補習班
花店
花店
補正下着
中古車買賣
貸款
婚紗
婚紗攝影
補習班
留學
情色
情色
百家乐
轮盘
21点
德州扑克
百家乐系统
真人娱乐场
百家乐
足球
德州扑克
电子游戏
英格兰超级联赛
德国甲组联赛
意大利甲组联赛
西班牙甲组联赛
法国甲组联赛欧冠杯
英超
足球比分
足球彩票
体育彩票
即时比分
堆高機
婚禮佈置
宜蘭民宿推薦
寵物用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
坐月子
植牙
牙齒矯正
租屋
催眠
房屋出租
租房子
xo醬
牛軋糖
牛嘎糖
代償
房屋貸款
信用貸款
失眠
減肥
眼鏡
金門高梁酒
變頻洗衣機
票貼
借款
關鍵字廣告
租車
減肥
眼鏡
睡眠障礙
憂鬱症
躁鬱症
減重
瘦身
中醫減肥
台北中醫減肥
台中中醫減肥
高雄中醫減肥
產後減肥
下半身減肥
下半身瘦身
高雄眼鏡
屏東眼鏡
名牌眼鏡
太陽眼鏡
隱形眼鏡
鐵氟龍
PTFE
中壢花店
林口花店
南崁花店
金莎花束
歌倫比亞
雞腳凍
飲料加盟
床
太陽餅
月餅
口袋秤
度量衡
吊秤
吊磅
電子秤
磅秤
口袋秤
度量衡
吊秤
吊磅
電子秤
磅秤
招牌製作
招牌設計
廣告招牌
大圖輸出
電腦割字
招牌看板
廢鐵
廢銅
廢不銹鋼
廢電線
廢鋁
廢棄物
廢電纜電線
廢塑膠
制服
成衣
戒指
耳環
項鍊
對戒
手鍊
銀飾
飾品
對鍊
護理之家
台中花店
考試
塑膠箱
塑膠容器
工具箱
物流箱
拖板車
自動倉儲
倉儲設備
自行車衣
自行車背包
自行車手套
車衣
債務更生
債務清理
法協
蜂蜜
蜂王乳花粉
農產品
草本膠囊
促進新陳代謝
排便順暢的方法
體內環保
塑膠射出
塑膠製品
塑膠箱籃
物流塑膠箱
休閒傢俱
庭園圍籬
Keep blogging.
Good luck.
花蓮入口網|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮美食|花蓮消費券|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮電影|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮海洋公園|花蓮縣長|花蓮遠來飯店|花蓮提拉米蘇|花蓮客運|蜂膠|花蓮太魯閣|花蓮廣告|花蓮地圖|花蓮旅遊|花蓮民宿|花蓮房屋|花蓮租車|花蓮汽車|花蓮餐廳|花蓮旅館|花蓮瑞穗牧場|花蓮名產|花蓮3600|花蓮租屋|花蓮理想大地|大月映|花蓮廣告|花蓮租車旅遊-TTA租車公司|花蓮餐廳|花蓮租車旅遊網|花蓮入口網|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮
av女優影片下載av女優影片下載av女優影片下載av女優影片下載av女優影片下載av女優影片下載av女優影片下載av女優影片下載av女優影片下載a片線上免費看a片線上免費看a片線上免費看a片線上免費看a片線上免費看a片線上免費看a片線上免費看a片線上免費看a片線上免費看a片線上免費看免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費看成人a片免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費成人片欣賞免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看免費 a 長片線上看a片短片試看aa片免費看微風論壇080哈啦聊天室6k聊天室成人聊天室上班族捷克論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室520視訊聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 a片a片影片免費情色影片免費a片觀看小弟第貼影片區免費av影片免費h影片試看 H漫 - 卡通美女短片小魔女貼影片免費影片觀賞無碼a片網美女pc交友相簿美女交友-哈啦聊天室中文a片線上試看免費電影下載區免費試看a短片免費卡通aa片觀看女優影片無碼直播免費性感a片試看日本AV女優影音娛樂網日本av女優無碼dvd辣妹視訊 - 免費聊天室美女交友視訊聊天室080免費視訊聊天室尋夢園聊天室080苗栗人聊天室a片下載日本免費視訊美女免費視訊聊天
威創牙醫診所除了提供優質的植牙技術外還提供假牙|矯正|牙周病治療，是值得您信賴的牙醫診所。
獅王紋身工作室提供專業的無痛刺青技術，獅王紋身在世界TATTOO大賽中，獲獎無數，獅王紋身給您最時尚的作品。
陳駿逸皮膚科診所提供了治療痘痘的服務，皮膚雷射權威，包括雷射、脈衝光、除斑等，讓您回復青春蘋果臉。
ck皮件處理棧提供專業洗包包|洗鞋子|各式皮件修理保養疑難雜症都有服務，清洗包包專門店讓您的包包、鞋子、永遠保持最新的況態唷。
杏儒中醫診所提供了糖尿病的治療。
成人貼圖站成人貼圖站成人貼圖站成人貼圖站成人貼圖站成人貼圖站成人貼圖站成人貼圖站成人貼圖站成人貼圖站淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色貼圖女孩自拍女孩自拍女孩自拍女孩自拍女孩自拍女孩自拍女孩自拍女孩自拍女孩自拍女孩自拍天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖天使情色貼圖本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長本土自拍寫真情色典獄長104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖104自拍美女貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖自拍做愛貼圖小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍小魔女自摸自拍淫蕩天使情色網淫蕩天使情色網淫蕩天使情色網
嘻哈論壇|
Taiwan City|
you tube中文版|
skype中文版下載
kmplayer繁體中文版
迅雷5下載
bt程式下載
cs1.6主程式下載
winrar免費下載
nds遊戲下載
KMPlayer下載
無蝦米正式版xp
海賊王漫畫連載
emule繁體中文版
directx9.0免費下載
office 2007下載
無蝦米vista正式版
爆爆王無敵程式
rmvb播放程式下載
遊戲天堂楓之谷
生份證產生器
最新線上遊戲排行榜
photoimpact下載
kmplayer繁體中文版
戰鎚online官方網
sao突襲online==========================================|===================|=|=|=|=|=|=|
=|=|=|=|=|
辣妹影音情人網辣妹影音情人網辣妹影音情人網玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室玩美女人視訊聊天室日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區日本情色貼圖區2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 2009性感網愛聊天室 KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部KK視訊俱樂部辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室辣妹視訊聊天室av1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebav1688影音娛樂網mywebfunav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網funav八大成人娛樂網av成人影片av成人影片av成人影片av成人影片av成人影片av成人影片av成人影片av成人影片av成人影片av成人影片okav成人電影院okav成人電影院okav成人電影院okav成人電影院
辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣
辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣ 辣妹美女㊣
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
173liveshow 視訊美女173liveshow 視訊美女視訊美女 live0204視訊美女 live0204888 視訊美女聊天室888 視訊美女聊天室msn 視訊美女msn 視訊美女99 視訊美女主播 500 點99 視訊美女主播 500 點5 分鐘護半身視訊美女5 分鐘護半身視訊美女tvnet0204 我愛你視訊美女拳tvnet0204 我愛你視訊美女拳love 免費視訊美女影音觀賞love 免費視訊美女影音觀賞aa-dvdaa-dvd成人影城成人影城383視訊影音城
水管不通 洗水塔 消毒 通水管 通馬桶 馬桶 馬桶不通 上順旅行社 五福旅行社 大興旅行社 天喜旅行社 天福旅行社 日本旅行社 日本旅遊 日本機票 日本自由行 宜蘭民宿 宜蘭民宿 包通 抽化糞池 抽水肥 水管不通 洗水塔 清水溝 通水管 通馬桶 馬桶 馬桶不通 抽水肥 通水管 通馬桶 便宜機票 國內旅遊 國外旅遊 國外機票 團體旅遊
Post a Comment
<< Home